545:- userboxes can easily be used by Wikipedians to contact a large number of like-minded people, damaging the neutrality policy by subverting normal consensus-based decision-making (one example: 9 out of 11 keep voters in the Catholic Alliance deletion debate did so after being contacted by the page's creator who found them through a category of "Catholic Wikipedians": Users were added to this category by the addition of the userbox declaring them to be Catholic). (this has to do with usage). See discussion page for two more recent examples of abuse.
206:'Editing interest' would allow templates that specify an interest in US politics, for example, but not membership or support of a particular party. For example, 'user Christian theology' but not 'user Christian believer', 'user abortion articles' but not 'pro-life', or 'scientology article editor' but not pro- or anti-.
21:
304:). They were accordingly assigned templates; and they, too, attempted to categorize users. Anyway, the categories and templates eventually found their way to the deletion process. Most were kept, some were deleted, some were moved, some were redirected. The resulting mess led to the recent creation of
551:
Is this such a bad thing? The consensus of the community is supposed to be what's respected, but obviously only the consensus of those who show up to weigh in can actually be considered. Therefore, in order to get the truest possible view of community opinion, isn't it best that all sides in a debate
564:
Is this such a new thing? People have been recruited for votes on many issues long before the user boxes became common, and banning user boxes is unlikely to prevent it in the future. In particular, people may associate with notable POVs or organizations merely by writing an opinions paragraph/page
828:
If there are clear, codified guidelines that have consensual support, including guidelines for what boxes are OK and when boxes that are out of compliance can be speedied, there will hopefully be less recurrence of controversy such as the controversy around the recent speedy deletions of boxes by 2
181:
Knowledge (XXG) is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy. As such, the main template and category space and the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim.
840:
Since there are an unlimited number of potential userboxes as previously noted, with redundacy included and slight variations based on miniscule details, as userboxes grow exponentially a situation could present itself where userboxes lose their categorical functions which are a main argument for
198:
Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. Userboxes existing in the template space should be those useful to declare a
710:
Even the discussion about the regulation of userboxes tempts users to have templates deleted which are perfectly legitimate and established, without even bothering about giving any reason other than "I don't like it". This is bringing useful projects like Babel to a halt or is at least severely
160:
Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better declared. There being no consensus on the matter, there should be no prohibition; prohibition is, in any case, unenforceable. Users should be permitted relatively free
832:
Userbox numbers are rising very rapidly. Numbers nearly doubled in
December--some 1500 new userboxes--and the present growth rate of 250 over the first three days of January suggest an exponential growth curve. If we don't recognise problems early it may be too late to deal with them later.
161:
expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance. They may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes). These should be limited only by the usual policies relevant to user pages, those regarding
638:
People will always find other
Wikipedians with similar beliefs or interests and form groups of friends in their time on Knowledge (XXG) anyway, regulation only slows the process and gives less of an advantage to newer users who haven't been around long enough to develop a network of
465:"Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia."
975:
If you get rid of POV then the user pages turn into Wikis about non-notable people. The user pages are a place of self expression. If you want to have NPOV userpages, then you might as well take the word "User:" out of the links and make users have their own wikis.
494:
Since template-space is internal, just a technical tool, not the frontend presented to the reader (which is articlespace), can NPOV reasonably said to apply to it as a whole? Don't articlespace policies only apply to templates used in articlespace?
202:
This provision should be interpreted fairly liberally, and would likely include templates related to language, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, and wiki-tasking (mediator
836:
There are a virtually unlimited number of potential userboxes, expressing every possible variation of human experience. There exists no standard for "userbox notability" to prevent even the most trivial and over-specific userboxes from being
718:
as holding some vehement or obnoxious opinion, this may be useful; it tells me something that would take a long and unpleasant experience of co-editing to learn otherwise, and I can discount their other opinions accordingly. (Labelling
256:
Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the
252:
be immediately deleted. These should be substituted onto user pages, or users notified to substitute them onto their user pages. These templates should be deleted after a period of four weeks grace or once all instances have been
308:, which has done a remarkable job in cleaning up and standardizing the userbox templates and categories. Unfortunately, userbox-related templates, categories, and redirects, etc. were still nominated for deletion. Recently,
729:
People tell me "if you have an opinion, put it on your user page, not in a template." But what if I want to declare my opinion in an easy-to-search format, so that others can audit my work for POV? I need a template for
477:
Templatespace may not be considered by all to be userspace, and thus NPOV may apply to boxes even if not to the pages themselves. This is not totally clear, it's an edge case. (this has to do with technical compliance)
312:
speedily deleted dozens of userboxes she thought were incivil, tended to categorize
Wikipedians by ideology, contained copyright infringements, or for other reasons (Discussion and relevant links can be found at
697:
Rallying votes is not such a bad thing; Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy, but it is still ruled in large part by the users, and users should be made aware of issues of interest so that their interests can be
209:
All userboxes that define a point of view, belief, extra-wiki affiliation, user-specific subject, or joke would be allowed unimpeded in the user namespace. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without
928:
Preventing users from identifying affiliations which they have anyway is totally contrary to the way such things are normally handled. Customarily, it is mandatory to declare ones interests before entering a
80:
commonly seen on
Wikipedians' user pages; what should be allowed, encouraged, or discouraged in userboxes. It may also touch on whether certain types ought to be speedily deleted. A debate began at the
92:
for a substantial amount of older debate which saw a number of proposals listed and voted/commented on by
Wikipedians. In light of the fact that this debate was heading toward a confusing stale mate,
648:
Categories help find other users knowledgeable or interested about the same subjects to help improve articles that might otherwise be neglected. It's not so different from an informal, decentralised
998:
Even if policies against advocacy exist, enabling mechanisms to make it easy to search for users with a particular point of view will make enforcement difficult and undermine the
Neutrality policy
552:
try to recruit
Wikipedians who would otherwise not be aware of the debate? Does the fact that a Wikipedian was recruited instead of independently finding a debate make their opinion less valid?
815:
Excessive userboxes may be seen as a wasteful use of
Knowledge (XXG)'s computing power, and of the financial donations that people have contributed, as well as the time of editors and admins.
898:
does not apply in userspace: Userspace is not article space and users do have points of view even if articles should not. Allowing userpages to have POV does not contravene the NPOV policy.
1001:
Displaying userboxes promoting a point of view radically undermines the ability of wikipedians to "assume good faith", especially on articles dealing with controversial issues.
704:
It is not the use of userboxes which has "split the community apart" (see below) as much as the events surrounding the userbox controversy, and the manner in which it arose.
89:
823:
There is less justification for content in User: space that exposes
Knowledge (XXG) to potential legal (e.g. copyright or libel) concerns than content in the main namespace
260:
Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements may be copied onto some special pages, from which they may be cut and paste (hard-coded) onto userpages as desired.
768:
781:
Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be used to organize campaigns to push a particular viewpoint. We've seen three examples of this by three separate users in three weeks.
645:: Assuming a userbox will be used to organise evil cabals is assuming bad faith towards all userbox users. Problems need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
1043:
314:
39:
1026:
The issue here is the automatic categorization of users that userboxes produce, which facilitates the subversion of the policies of neutrality and consensus.
910:
As a user´s POV is part of her/his identity, and users are allowed to write information about themselves on their userpage, POV should be allowed there too.
652:
or from users in fact stating their interests on their user page without using a "user box" for it as has been going on for a long time, or user categories
286:. Then the userboxes themselves were turned into templates, and the userbox templates began including category tags to automatically categorize users under
733:
What people do on their user pages should be left alone. While
Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy, it should at least have some freedoms on user pages.
555:
Sometimes it will be hard to distinguish vote-stacking operations from sincere efforts to broaden a discussion, but the key difference is whether the
1063:
812:
an encyclopedia. The User: space, while not intended to be encyclopedic, is primarily intended to facilitate the maintenance of the encyclopedia.
972:
Understanding another users position aids in discussion by allowing one to communicate in meaningful ways, informed by the users espoused outlook.
444:
like LiveJournal, where you can give your life history, all your opinions, and your associations. "Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but
1004:
Electioneering and campaigning. Will Knowledge (XXG) be used as a campaigning tool by political groups uninterested in building an encyclopedia?
1058:
548:(Note: During the Catholic Alliance AfD several delete votes were registered by Catholic Wikipedians who were contacted by the same process)
173:, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost.
43:
796:
784:
726:
Userbox templates may save computer storage space. One userbox template takes up less space than the same userbox copied to many userpages.
441:
434:
428:
199:
relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded.
28:
483:
There is no technical compliance issue. The neutrality policy is explicit that it applies to "all articles". User pages aren't articles.
559:
effort is intended to find put more viewpoints in the discussion, or whether it is intended to marginalise/drown out opposing viewpoints
1029:
If categorization is removed, users will simply resort to finding what pages link to the image used in the user box as an alternative.
701:"Redundant" and "pointless" are subjective, POV value judgments, and not reasons to delete userboxes (just reasons not to keep them).
305:
947:
The existence of any POV userbox implies a right to create a userbox with an opposing POV, but regulation is likely to be one-sided.
670:
Regulations like "userboxes shouldn't violate copyright" are redundant with existing regulations and thus a complete waste of time.
473:- many userboxes may arguably technically need to comply with WP:NPOV even though NPOV may not apply in userspace, because they use
291:
772:
809:
863:
358:
What is different from grouping Wikipedians by category according to point of view/interests/beliefs and grouping Wikipedians by
125:
116:
950:
Userboxes remind us that Knowledge (XXG) users are human and subject to differences of opinion and perspective (hence the term
38:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
778:
Some userboxes should not have categories associated with them as while the box may be amusing, the category is not useful.
753:
707:
Regulating userboxes beyond existing policy might discourage some users from providing donations to support the project.
635:
Deleting userboxes is harmful to the community spirit, and the deletionism associated with it has created much conflict.
873:
757:
514:
All Knowledge (XXG) articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.
415:
505:
As it says, the self-reference preference applies only "within Knowledge (XXG) articles". User pages aren't articles.
907:
If users are allowed to express their POV on their user page they might not feel the need to vandalise article pages.
572:
498:
Wouldn't binding templates to articlespace rules lead to Knowledge (XXG)-internal templates being prohibited under
995:
Allowing userpages to have a point of view (acceptable) can lead to advocacy (not in the interests of the project)
939:
The better that editors understand each others' POV, the better chance they have of collectively achieving a NPOV.
1023:
There is nothing wrong with expressing one's viewpoint on a user page, within reason, even with a pretty graphic.
849:
Too much respect for userbox free speech can lead to acceptance of uncivil or personal-attacking userboxes (e.g.
349:
Should Knowledge (XXG) allow templates designed for the user namespace which support particular points of view?
129:
649:
359:
102:
632:
We are all human and userboxes can foster collegiality which can reduce friction and make work more pleasant.
594:
Userboxes help editors understand each others' points of view, helping to create a more neutral encyclopedia.
227:
Use of categories should be restricted to encyclopedic content and certainly shouldn't be used in userboxes.
694:
User categories are useful for legitimate purposes, such as finding potential members of a new WikiProject.
276:
818:
Moreover, templates with images are notorious drains on server power, moreso than other types of content.
761:
625:
542:
474:
366:
76:
35:
298:
853:
405:
52:
872:
What is needed is a clear set of guidelines for deleting userboxes similar to the guidelines used for
904:
Knowing an editor's tendency towards bias might help someone looking at their edits to determine POV.
657:
340:
287:
290:. And then, of course, a number of Wikipedians began creating humorous parody userboxes (such as {{
365:
Would forbidding the expression of a point of view in templates also affect the already existing
214:
by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This would be subject to the caveats of principles
921:
lead to NPOV edits in real articles or deliberate voting blocs is in violation of the spirit of
525:
509:
487:
395:
211:
309:
969:
Removing outlets for personal expression would serve to alienate some users from the project.
895:
602:
538:
499:
470:
370:
170:
149:
664:
153:
922:
642:
621:
453:
242:
166:
162:
962:
iew). Acknowledging this, Knowledge (XXG) writers can more realistically strive toward a
598:
459:
389:
383:
346:
Many userboxes cover topics/views/interests unrelated to the creating of an encyclopedia.
283:
241:
Userboxes that are blatant infringements of applicable Knowledge (XXG) policy, such as
352:
Should we allow templates that serve no purpose other than adding humor to user pages?
191:
Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in
1052:
506:
484:
607:
User pages have been considered exempt from the NPOV policy since the early days of
522:
614:
608:
936:
when you use a template is a) subliminal and b) not viewed by some as beneficial.
282:
Userboxes started out as informative supplements designed to fit snugly into the
944:" templates should be treated equally, but in practice have not been so treated.
787:
339:
Userboxes have been created with embedded categories in the previously-existing
93:
691:
Userboxes are a (mostly) harmless way to practice template writing techniques.
685:
Userboxes are fun. Fun things help the community. WP needs a strong community.
771:
where new userboxes are debated, rather than simply requesting they be made
386:- userboxes may contain content not acceptable for userpages, for instance:
333:
Do userboxes for religions and personal opinions encourage factionalisation?
901:
Expressing one's point of view is not necessarily the same as promoting it.
85:
page, and some content from that debate was used to start this proposal.
846:
Far from building a community, the userbox controversy has split it apart.
688:
Writing up and enforcing regulations takes time away from productive work.
1018:(i.e. one-line) concerns about confusing two issues that may be separate.
990:(i.e. one-line) concerns about not regulating point of view on userpages.
674:
327:
272:
799:
565:
with wikilinks to wikipedia articles about those POVs or organizations.
355:
What types of templates and what types of categories should be allowed?
238:
Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease, except as follows:
575:- Many userboxes are used in the same manner that categories are used.
446:
they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia.
373:, which allows Wikipedians to have personal views on their user pages?
401:
Userboxes that attack a point of view vehemently can be incivil:
96:
has re-set the page with a bit of a format to encourage initial
248:
Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should
115:
There is a completed poll about an almost identical policy in
15:
516:
This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals
682:
Userboxes are a trivial fad not worth our time messing with.
890:(i.e. one-line) concerns about regulating POV on userpages.
1009:
Concerns about lumping in user expression with userboxes
981:
Concerns about not regulating point of view on userpages
747:(i.e. one-line) concerns about not regulating userboxes.
82:
60:
613:
Some argue that overt advocacy on issues unrelated to
601:
among Wikipedians as to how far to take the ideals of
158:'here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'.
398:- userboxes may contain offensive or incivil content
589:(i.e. one-line) concerns about regulating userboxes.
767:There should be a system for inclusion as seen for
462:- some userboxes may be covered by the following:
437:for pushing a point of view (even on a user page),
617:itself is unfaithful to the spirit of WP and NPOV
518:. So it's arguable that it does apply to userbox
336:Do userboxes facilitate poll-stacking operations?
330:/copyrighted images legally allowed in userboxes?
321:Issues regarding userboxes and userpage templates
315:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Kelly Martin
279:'s opening version of this debate, and edited.)
222:. These userboxes also should not contain images.
932:Having a POV userbox is not an issue, but being
624:, allowing an outlet for expression helps reach
1042:discussion relevant to this proposed policy on
673:Many people have a poor understanding of where
456:- some userboxes may amount to personal attacks
362:according to point of view/interests/beliefs?
8:
431:where users need to organize into factions,
881:Concerns about regulating POV on userpages
126:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy
110:A workable userbox or user template policy
128:, which was based on an earlier proposal
723:"a hater of X" is defamatory vandalism.)
738:Concerns about not regulating userboxes
677:applies, so they need clearer guidance.
378:Policies relevant to the userbox debate
148:Foundational to Knowledge (XXG) is the
369:policy and the current incarnation of
934:automatically added to a POV category
620:Some argue that since people do have
7:
754:Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo
656:matching userboxes such as those in
1064:Knowledge (XXG) userbox discussions
580:Concerns about regulating userboxes
392:- the status of images in userboxes
117:Knowledge (XXG):Userbox policy poll
1014:Note: this is a place for listing
986:Note: this is a place for listing
943:" and "against <same thing: -->
886:Note: this is a place for listing
864:User 2006 New Year Day Participate
752:Many are redundant/pointless (eg.
743:Note: this is a place for listing
585:Note: this is a place for listing
14:
758:Knowledge (XXG):Userboxes/Colours
292:User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Geek
1059:Knowledge (XXG) failed proposals
442:a free host or webspace provider
19:
119:(poll closed on March 8, 2006)
1:
526:06:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
510:05:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
488:05:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
425:What Knowledge (XXG) is not:
942:Both "pro-<something: -->
714:If someone wishes to label
245:, should be speedy deleted.
1080:
73:This page is to discuss a
50:
913:Making policy because we
367:Knowledge (XXG):User page
130:User:Doc glasgow/workshop
100:rather than a premature
416:User against scientology
42:or initiate a thread at
797:Knowledge (XXG) is not
785:Knowledge (XXG) is not
711:impeding its progress.
219:
215:
192:
306:WikiProject Userboxes
150:neutral point of view
658:Category:Wikipedians
341:Category:Wikipedians
288:Category:Wikipedians
762:Template:user world
665:m:instruction creep
243:No personal attacks
163:no personal attacks
83:Village pump policy
75:proposed policy on
810:Knowledge (XXG) is
90:the proposals page
829:different admins.
643:Assume good faith
277:TantalumTelluride
71:
70:
1071:
868:
862:
858:
852:
841:their existence.
557:get out the vote
454:Personal attacks
420:
414:
410:
404:
303:
297:
179:
146:
63:
44:the village pump
23:
22:
16:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1049:
1048:
1036:
1011:
983:
883:
866:
860:
856:
850:
740:
582:
418:
412:
408:
402:
380:
323:
301:
295:
284:Babel templates
269:
233:Implementation:
186:Userbox Policy:
177:
144:
121:
112:
67:
66:
59:
55:
47:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1077:
1075:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1051:
1050:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
999:
996:
982:
979:
978:
977:
973:
970:
967:
948:
945:
940:
937:
930:
926:
917:POV userpages
911:
908:
905:
902:
899:
882:
879:
878:
877:
874:deleting pages
870:
847:
844:
843:
842:
838:
830:
826:
825:
824:
821:
820:
819:
806:
805:
804:
803:
791:
790:
782:
779:
776:
765:
739:
736:
735:
734:
731:
727:
724:
712:
708:
705:
702:
699:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
679:
678:
668:
661:
646:
640:
636:
633:
630:
629:
628:
618:
611:
595:
581:
578:
577:
576:
573:Categorization
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
562:
561:
560:
549:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
492:
491:
490:
468:
467:
466:
457:
451:
450:
449:
438:
432:
429:a battleground
423:
422:
421:
393:
379:
376:
375:
374:
363:
356:
353:
350:
347:
344:
337:
334:
331:
322:
319:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
254:
246:
231:
229:
228:
225:
224:
223:
207:
204:
196:
137:
135:
134:
113:
111:
108:
69:
68:
65:
64:
56:
51:
48:
34:
33:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1076:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1047:
1045:
1044:the talk page
1041:
1033:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1008:
1003:
1000:
997:
994:
993:
992:
991:
989:
980:
974:
971:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
941:
938:
935:
931:
927:
924:
920:
916:
912:
909:
906:
903:
900:
897:
894:
893:
892:
891:
889:
880:
875:
871:
865:
855:
848:
845:
839:
835:
834:
831:
827:
822:
817:
816:
814:
813:
811:
808:
807:
801:
798:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
786:
783:
780:
777:
774:
770:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
746:
737:
732:
728:
725:
722:
717:
713:
709:
706:
703:
700:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
676:
672:
671:
669:
666:
662:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
641:
639:Wiki-friends.
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
616:
612:
610:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
593:
592:
591:
590:
588:
579:
574:
571:
563:
558:
554:
553:
550:
547:
546:
544:
540:
537:
527:
524:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
508:
504:
503:
501:
497:
496:
493:
489:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
469:
464:
463:
461:
458:
455:
452:
447:
443:
439:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
424:
417:
407:
400:
399:
397:
394:
391:
388:
387:
385:
382:
381:
377:
372:
368:
364:
361:
357:
354:
351:
348:
345:
342:
338:
335:
332:
329:
325:
324:
320:
318:
316:
311:
307:
300:
293:
289:
285:
280:
278:
274:
266:
259:
255:
251:
247:
244:
240:
239:
237:
236:
235:
234:
226:
221:
217:
213:
208:
205:
201:
200:
197:
194:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
180:
174:
172:
168:
164:
159:
156:has said that
155:
151:
147:
141:
140:
133:
131:
127:
123:
122:
120:
118:
109:
107:
105:
104:
99:
95:
91:
86:
84:
79:
78:
62:
58:
57:
54:
49:
45:
41:
40:the talk page
37:
32:
30:
25:
18:
17:
1039:
1038:Please post
1037:
1015:
1013:
1012:
987:
985:
984:
963:
959:
955:
951:
933:
918:
914:
887:
885:
884:
744:
742:
741:
721:someone else
720:
715:
698:represented.
653:
586:
584:
583:
556:
519:
515:
445:
360:WikiProjects
310:Kelly Martin
281:
271:(taken from
270:
253:substituted.
249:
232:
230:
212:substitution
185:
184:
176:
175:
157:
143:
142:
138:
136:
132:
124:Copied from
114:
101:
97:
87:
74:
72:
26:
966:eutral POV.
788:LiveJournal
650:WikiProject
139:Principles:
88:Please see
1053:Categories
1034:Discussion
976:Senseless.
769:stubs here
716:themselves
539:Neutrality
471:Neutrality
460:User pages
384:User pages
267:Background
103:straw poll
98:discussion
27:This is a
802:, either.
626:Consensus
597:There is
543:Consensus
520:templates
475:Templates
435:a soapbox
299:User n00b
257:project'.
171:copyright
77:userboxes
36:Consensus
31:proposal.
854:User GWB
675:fair use
507:Jamesday
485:Jamesday
406:User GWB
396:Civility
390:Fair use
328:fair use
167:civility
53:Shortcut
929:debate.
896:WP:NPOV
800:MySpace
654:without
599:dispute
523:Cynical
500:WP:SELF
371:WP:NPOV
294:}} and
275:'s and
923:WP:AGF
663:Avoid
203:etc.).
94:Harro5
61:WP:UBP
29:failed
1016:brief
988:brief
954:oint
919:might
915:think
888:brief
837:made.
745:brief
730:that.
587:brief
154:Jimbo
773:here
622:POVs
603:NPOV
541:and
326:Are
218:and
1040:all
760:or
756:or
440:or
317:.)
273:Lar
250:not
1055::
1046:.
958:f
867:}}
861:{{
859:,
857:}}
851:{{
764:).
615:WP
609:WP
502:?
419:}}
413:{{
411:,
409:}}
403:{{
302:}}
296:{{
195:).
178:B.
169:,
165:,
152:.
145:A.
106:.
964:N
960:V
956:O
952:P
925:.
876:.
869:.
775:.
667:.
660:.
448:"
343:.
220:B
216:A
193:A
46:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.